The Christian Pollution of Public Discourse part 2
Christianity is one of the important voices that currently monopolize public discourse. It is a very destructive and amoral voice. I don't think I'm surprising anyone when I say that.
However, to say that it must be gagged no doubt offends some people. And of course, fanatic tolerentists will always accuse me of being a totalitarian or somesuch nonsense. I am an anarchist ! As such, I CANNOT advocate government censorship, or at least it would be highly hypocrite of me to claim such a thing. What I am advocating is that atheists should stop being nice to Christians and treating them as worthy of respect and "equal time". I am advocating awareness.
Am I a "fundie" ? An extremist ? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's a reasonable position to hold. After all, most people have no qualms repressing racist rhetoric. And yet racists only hate part of mankind. How are we supposed to treat, therefore, people who believe that everyone's suffering is trivial and can be explained away by a perfectly good being ? That's the height of offensiveness. And yet we treat Christians with respect and racists with disdain. There is a serious problem in our value priorities, as atheists, if we do that.
We disdain ideologies that devalue some people, and yet we welcome a religion that claims every single person in the world is inherently evil and that no one's values are valid. Where's the logic in that ?
Am I an anti-theist ? Certainly. I am an anti-theist in the same way that I am an anti-racist, anti-quack or anti-cults. I don't like people who preach in the public square against reason, personal freedom or personal values, or who act against them. Does that make me a "fundie" ? Well, the word "fundie" is often misused, but if it makes me one, then I don't have a problem with the idea.
Basically, the problem is that atheists have the modern value of tolerence, and while that would be a perfect trait in a rational society, being tolerent of evil ideologies is not a great trait. We see the result in the current cultural war being waged in Europe. Tolerence opens the door to extremism, and within democracies with no moral compass, we have little defense against extremism.
What use is it to exclude people from public discourse ? Wouldn't that only create more problems ? I don't think so. Government censorship creates problems and is generally useless, yes. Once again I repeat that I do not want government censorship. I simply wish that atheists would stop being tolerent of Christianity and let Christian beliefs be expressed on their territory without batting an eyelash, when equally repulsive and morally bankrupt beliefs are enforced against by those same atheists.
The good it would do is, I admit, rather limited. One thing it would do is display the intellectual and moral corruption of Christianity. Right now, as it stands, no one is free to challenge the offensiveness and moral corruption of Christianity on most public forums. Christians are allowed to post their amoral rhetoric unpunished, and new atheists who look at the conversations do not see the full extent of the absurdity of that rhetoric.
Christianity says all our sufferings can be explained away. Christianity is offensive towards all human beings. They need to be made accountable for all the suffering that they trivialize.
Christianity says that a man can absolve any crime you commit. That is the height of irresponsibility and amorality. Christianity is disgusting and evil.
Christianity says God popped the universe out of nothing. That's the height of illogic and anti-science. Christianity is braindead stupid, and its promotion of willful ignorance is evil.
Christianity is centered around the life of a man who never existed. Christians are glassy-eyed idiots who worship thin air.
Christianity says the perfect ending to the world is the slaughtering of two-thirds (or more) of the world population. Christianity is fucking insane and promotes evil.
Someone needs to say this, and not just on this blog. It needs to be said far and wide. You can't argue morality without passion. The evil, the offensive, the repulsive must be passionately argued against. To dismiss them logically does not do justice to the extent of their depravity, and gives other people the feeling that we do not see them as moral issues.
On my next entry I will give my thoughts on why atheism will only flourish if we win the war of morality.